Congress’ antitrust push has a hate speech problem

Sen. Klobuchar’s antitrust bill is supposed to promote competition. So why are advocates afraid it could also promote extremists?

Amy Klobuchar

The bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

Photo: Photo by Elizabeth Frantz-Pool/Getty Images

The antitrust bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday and is now headed to the Senate floor is, at its core, an attempt to prevent the likes of Apple, Amazon and Google from boosting their own products and services on the marketplaces and platforms they own.

But upon closer inspection, some experts say, the bill as written could make it a lot riskier for large tech companies to deplatform or demote companies that violate their rules.

The American Innovation and Choice Online Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley, prohibits self-preferencing by the largest tech companies. Unsurprisingly, it brought out the usual opposition from tech giants and their lobbyists this week. But it also inspired forceful critiques even from advocates who have been at the forefront of the techlash, including Free Press, which argued in a blog post Thursday that the parts of the bill could threaten enforcement against hate speech and other problematic behavior.

The trouble, they say, lies in part of the bill that would make it illegal for platforms to “discriminate” against “similarly situated business users” in the course of enforcing their terms of service. That, of course, could apply to a company like Google down-ranking another company in search results to promote Google’s own services. But, critics say, it could also lead to legal cases where tech giants get accused of anticompetitive behavior for deplatforming a business like Infowars.

The bill “opens the door to arguments that covered platforms are unlawfully discriminating against hate-and-disinformation purveyors by taking them down,” Free Press associate legal director Carmen Scurato wrote in a statement this week. “State AGs and future FTC officials charged with enforcing this bill could easily but falsely paint apps like Parler or businesses like Infowars as ‘similarly situated’ to other apps and sites that remain available on the covered platforms.”

Free Press wasn’t alone in making this case. TechFreedom, a significantly more industry-friendly group, raised a similar point in a letter to lawmakers this week. “If a majority of FTC Commissioners were bent on a partisan agenda — e.g., forcing mainstream platforms to carry Parler — it would be significantly easier for them to use the administrative litigation process to do so,” TechFreedom wrote, noting that the mere possibility of such litigation “could suffice to pressure Big Tech platforms to comply.”

To be clear, nothing in the bill prevents companies from enforcing their terms of service, per se, but critics argue the bill could lay the groundwork for cases that aim to prove the terms themselves are discriminatory.

A spokesperson for Klobuchar said that deplatforming a company for hate speech was unlikely to be a material harm to competition. If someone were to bring such a case with that argument, the spokesperson said, a platform could show it was acting to protect user safety.

This argument has won over groups like Accountable Tech, which often sit on the same side as Free Press when it comes to issues of tech accountability. “I have tremendous respect for Free Press and appreciate their concerns, but we wouldn't be supporting this bill if we felt it threatened platforms' ability to properly enforce their rules to safeguard people from harm,” said Jesse Lehrich, co-founder of Accountable Tech. Lehrich pointed to the fact that the provision only impacts discrimination against businesses, not individuals, and allows platforms to offer user safety as an affirmative defense. Lehrich said, however, that if there’s a way to further clarify the provision without gutting it, “I’m all for it.”

The topic of hate speech did come up, though sparingly, during the Senate debate Thursday, with California Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla arguing that the bill would “be a gift to bad actors seeking to prevent platforms from blocking business users that peddle hate speech or … election disinformation.”

This issue is just one of several that will need to be ironed out before the bill goes to a final vote. But it may also be among the trickiest to come to an agreement on: If an antitrust crackdown on Big Tech is the glue holding Democrats and Republicans together, content moderation is a surefire wedge.

During Thursday’s hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, who voted in favor of the bill, made clear he wanted the legislation to do more to stop tech companies from interfering with conservative speech, noting that the current bill “would make some positive improvement on the problem of censorship.”

“As I read this statute, it would provide protections to content providers, to businesses that are discriminated against because of the content of what they produce,” Cruz said. “I think that is a meaningful step forward. That language is important."

The last thing Democrats want is to embolden the extremists who have motivated so much of their resentment toward tech to begin with. Then again, scrapping that provision altogether could cost Democrats the precious few Republican votes they’ll need to actually pass the bill.


Work expands to fill the time – but only if you let it

The former Todoist productivity expert drops time-blocking tips, lofi beats playlists for concentrating and other knowledge bombs.

“I do hope the productivity space as a whole is more intentional about pushing narratives that are about life versus just work.”

Photo: Courtesy of Fadeke Adegbuyi

Fadeke Adegbuyi knows how to dole out productivity advice. When she was a marketing manager at Doist, she taught users via blogs and newsletters about how to better organize their lives. Doist, the company behind to-do-list app Todoist and messaging app Twist, has pushed remote and asynchronous work for years. Adegbuyi’s job was to translate these ideas to the masses.

“We were thinking about asynchronous communication from a work point of view, of like: What is most effective for doing ambitious and awesome work, and also, what is most advantageous for living a life that feels balanced?” Adegbuyi said.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Why the digital transformation of industries is creating a more sustainable future

Qualcomm’s chief sustainability officer Angela Baker on how companies can view going “digital” as a way not only toward growth, as laid out in a recent report, but also toward establishing and meeting environmental, social and governance goals.

Three letters dominate business practice at present: ESG, or environmental, social and governance goals. The number of mentions of the environment in financial earnings has doubled in the last five years, according to GlobalData: 600,000 companies mentioned the term in their annual or quarterly results last year.

But meeting those ESG goals can be a challenge — one that businesses can’t and shouldn’t take lightly. Ahead of an exclusive fireside chat at Davos, Angela Baker, chief sustainability officer at Qualcomm, sat down with Protocol to speak about how best to achieve those targets and how Qualcomm thinks about its own sustainability strategy, net zero commitment, other ESG targets and more.

Keep Reading Show less
Chris Stokel-Walker

Chris Stokel-Walker is a freelance technology and culture journalist and author of "YouTubers: How YouTube Shook Up TV and Created a New Generation of Stars." His work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian and Wired.


It's OK to cry at work

Our comfort with crying at work has changed drastically over the past couple years. But experts said the hard part is helping workers get through the underlying mental health challenges.

Tech workers and workplace mental health experts said discussing emotions at work has become less taboo over the past couple years, but we’re still a ways away from completely normalizing the conversation — and adjusting policies accordingly.

Photo: Teerasak Ainkeaw / EyeEm via Getty Images

Everyone seems to be ugly crying on the internet these days. A new Snapchat filter makes people look like they’re breaking down on television, crying at celebratory occasions or crying when it sounds like they’re laughing. But one of the ways it's been used is weirdly cathartic: the workplace.

In one video, a creator posted a video of their co-worker merely sitting at a desk, presumably giggling or smiling, but the Snapchat tool gave them a pained look on their face. The video was captioned: “When you still have two hours left of your working day.” Another video showed someone asking their co-workers if they enjoy their job. Everyone said yes, but the filter indicated otherwise.

Keep Reading Show less
Sarah Roach

Sarah Roach is a news writer at Protocol (@sarahroach_) and contributes to Source Code. She is a recent graduate of George Washington University, where she studied journalism and mass communication and criminal justice. She previously worked for two years as editor in chief of her school's independent newspaper, The GW Hatchet.


Arm’s new CEO is planning the IPO it sought to avoid last year

Arm CEO Rene Haas told Protocol that Arm will be fine as a standalone company, as it focuses on efficient computing and giving customers a more finished product than a basic chip core design.

Rene Haas is taking Arm on a fresh trajectory.

Photo: Arm

The new path for Arm is beginning to come into focus.

Weeks after Nvidia’s $40 bid to acquire Arm from SoftBank collapsed, the appointment of Rene Haas to replace longtime chief executive Simon Segars has set the business on a fresh trajectory. Haas appears determined to shake up the company, with plans to lay off as much as 15% of the staff ahead of plans to take the company public once again by the end of March next year.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a senior reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.


The great onshoring: Inside the transcontinental chip race

The second annual Trade and Technology Council emphasized the centrality of semiconductor onshoring to U.S.-EU military objectives.

For chip manufacturers, free-flowing subsidies for now might come at the cost of a potential overcapacity problem in the longer term.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

The prospect of global conflict permeated the room at this year’s Trade and Technology Council, which concluded in France earlier this week. The second annual gathering of U.S. and EU officials yielded a joint statement that mentioned some form of “Russia” or “Ukraine” more frequently than “technology,” “regulation,” “investment,” “security” or “competition.”

The conflict in Ukraine, having already escalated into a U.S. proxy war, seemingly convinced the EU to fall in line with the American tech policy agenda.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Latest Stories